Russell won 5 MVP awards and 11 championships to Lebron’s 4/2 and that makes me a huge homer? (And yes, Lebron is still in mid-career, which goes to my point that Lebron can’t be fully evaluated yet.) I left Bird off of my Mount Rushmore, and I saw a lot more of Larry Bird than Russell.
Discussing what constitutes legacy is very pertinent to a “Mount Rushmore” thread. It’s hardly a hijack just because you would prefer your own criteria be used.
Sure. But if you think the most important parts of a basketball player’s legacy are press conferences and apologies to the media, I’m going to say I’d rather focus on the actual basketball. If you want to bring in civil rights, as ElvisL1ves does, that makes some sense because at least those things are really important.
Bill Russell was one of the first “non-apologetic” African-American athletes, preceding even Muhammad Ali. In the early 60s, Boston was cool to a team that had so many black players. Russell did not pander, and many fans were hostile to what they considered his defiance. As far as I can tell, the only thing he cared about, professionally, was winning.
And at the risk of being a huge-homer, it should be noted that Russell was the first African-American Head-Coach/Manager of a major American sports team, winning 2 World Championships in 3 years, with a very old team of veterans.
My original statement was that if Lebron retired today, that’s what he’d be most remembered for. And it goes beyond how he answers media questions, it also deals with the “ESPN-ization” of the sport, and introduced the concept that free agents can conspire(as he did with Bosch) and decide where and how to build a winner. Wilt was guilty of similar “sins,” orchestrating his moves long before Free Agency, and if someone wanted to make a case against Wilt’s legacy, they’d be valid points.
We’re the ones who decide how he’ll be remembered, as we’re the ones who do the remembering. This trick of lamenting it out of one side of your mouth while actually reinforcing it out of the other is something I’m pretty sure you’ve also done in a few other threads. Most of us are talking about what we think is important, to the extent any of this is important. Are you choosing to talk about something you don’t think is important?
I find that when I have an irrational hatred of a player (in my case, Kobe Bryant), I find it’s best to just not talk about the subject. It’s the best thing for everyone.
Wooden has no place on the NBA Mount Rushmore, of course. We’ll make room for him on the NCAA hoops version, if we can put his money man Sam Gilbert in with him. 
I’m a Cavs fan, and as disgruntled as the Decision made me, I never stopped thinking he was the best player in the NBA and that he would go down as one of the all time greats, and I eventually accepted that going to Miami was the right choice for him, in terms of contending for a championship. I don’t think any player has ever had the ability to get to the rim at will and score like LeBron.
I’m not lamenting anything. So far, Lebron James strikes me as pathetic and overly concerned about his legacy. The more he worries about it more he hurts it. He’s a great player amongst a slew of great players, most of whom had enough self-confidence to, professionally, not worry about anything but winning (and making a buck is okay, as well.) At the highest levels of sports, those that are the most focused on winning will prevail more often than those thinking about their legacies. Russell, Jordan, Bird, West, Magic to name a few were absolutely cold-blooded, and in the moment during the biggest of games. (And James has been at that level recently, but not early in his career, so waiting to see how his career goes from here is entirely relevant.)
You may not want me to consider “The Decision” in regards to James’ legacy, but right now, at this point of his career, I do consider it, as do many others, I suspect, and we are the ones that will eventually determine his legacy.
Ah, yes. Your considered opinion, upon reflection, is that he’s: pathetic.
It will be a big part, but I’m not sure it’s what he’d be most remembered for.
And yes, the ESPN hype machine is annoying, and it’s tough being a fan of a small market team that’s not a first choice destination for free agents, which makes it difficult to acquire the two stars a team needs to win championships. But hyping stars is an inherent part of the NBA’s success, because a team can only put 5 guys on the court at a time, so a star player’s contributions will be outsized.
Plus, I think the NBA’s salary structure might be the best in pro sports. The Cavs may be lowly now, and Cleveland isn’t LA or NY, but they have Kyrie, and the rules give them the ability to give him the most money for his first max deal, which gives them the best shot at retaining him, and his presence will give them an edge in free agency. That’s why it’s plausible that LeBron could return, because he’ll have Kyrie on his team. So small market teams still need to be lucky to compete, but the salary rules allow them to leverage their good fortune.
Yep. And a few posts ago, I compared him to Reggie Jackson, and how it struck me as pathetic that someone at the top of their profession, who’d made so much money, and won championships would be so concerned with their legacy in mid-career.
Obviously you don’t agree, and, apparently, it upsets you that I think so.
It was never plausible that LeBron was going back to Cleveland, but I agree with the general point. But I think there’s a way to make things even more fair: eliminate the max contract altogether. It puts the small-market teams at a disadvantage. If some team is way under the cap and wants to offer LeBron $35 million a year for four years, let them.
You don’t think LeBron could opt out, engage in more backroom dealings, and sign with Cleveland? I’m not saying it’s likely, but I’d say the odds are more than remote.
And I don’t see how max contract limits could possibly put small market teams at a disadvantage. They were the ones who pushed for it when the CBA was being negotiated. How’s it working for MLB?
What a strange remark. LeBron’s contribution to the league is leaving Cleveland for Miami in free agency? Not his amazing versatility and complete game? Not being the first post-analytics superstar? Not playing point forward on highly unconventional, yet highly successful, small-ball Miami teams? Not a 27-game win streak? Not for his combination of individual scoring ability and unselfish play? Not his memorable battles with Boston and Indiana teams? Not his burgeoning rivalry with Durant? Not two titles and four Finals appearances?
Nope, you’re going with leaving Cleveland as a free agent. Odd, then, that you don’t define Kareem’s contribution as begging out of Milwaukee.
Don’t forget restricted free agency, which will give Cleveland the right to match any contract offer Irving gets once his rookie contract ends.
I’m also a fan of the rookie salary scale, which prevents disasters like Chris Webber’s rookie contract from happening, and seems (no objective evidence, of course) to have contributed to a more hard-working, professional, and meritocratic league than I can ever recall.
No. I never understood why anyone thought this was even a remote possibility. It’s not that it’s logistically or contractually impossible, although it might be hard. It’s that Cleveland was always clearly going to be an inferior team to Miami going to this offseason and there was never a path to making Cleveland the best team in the East. On top of that you have the fact that he evidently doesn’t care much for Cleveland (as opposed to Akron), the local tax issues, and the fact that the team is still owned by Dan Gilbert and they brought back Mike Brown as coach, which was like hanging a giant “We don’t want LeBron” sign on the door. And unfortunately the Cavs are a flaming pile of garbage right now in any case.
The NBA owners did a few things that didn’t make sense during the lockout- I think some of them fell for that nonsense about parity, which was clearly not the goal. And MLB is different because they have a softer salary cap that isn’t keeping up with the exploding revenue from local TV deals. The NBA has a pretty harsh salary cap now; only Brooklyn seems willing to ignore it entirely. If you keep the same basic cap rules but let the teams offer stars as much as they like, then small market teams like Utah and Cleveland would have a better shot at competing for star players. Otherwise they’ll be at a disadvantage to larger and more appealing markets like LA and New York and Miami.
Honestly, if I were him, my number one concern about Cleveland right now would be trying to win a championship with Irving as my running mate. Total sieve on defense, seemingly adrift for two and three games at a time… I don’t know. He’s a fantastic player and one who I think is going to be legitimately great, but I’m not sure I’d want to opt in to the experience given all the other options I would have. Especially after playing these few years with a super-efficient, much less ball-hungry serial killer like Wade.
Going from Spoelstra back to Mike Brown would be like leaving MIT to re-take the ninth grade.
Fun idea that absolutely will not happen: LeBron opts of of Miami and signs with New Orleans, to play with Anthony Davis, Jrue Holiday, Ryan Anderson, and Eric Gordon. Have fun guarding the James/Davis pick and roll, while Anderson spots up in the weakside corner.
Get rid of Gordon and Holiday for another shooter and Tyson Chandler and you win about five of the next six.